-
International Journal of Oral and... Jan 2024Clinicians frequently prescribe systemic antibiotics after lower third molar extractions to prevent complications such as surgical site infections and dry socket. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Clinicians frequently prescribe systemic antibiotics after lower third molar extractions to prevent complications such as surgical site infections and dry socket. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials was conducted to compare the risk of dry socket and surgical site infection after the removal of lower third molars with different prophylactic antibiotics. The occurrence of any antibiotic-related adverse event was also analysed. A pairwise and network meta-analysis was performed to establish direct and indirect comparisons of each outcome variable. Sixteen articles involving 2158 patients (2428 lower third molars) were included, and the following antibiotics were analysed: amoxicillin (with and without clavulanic acid), metronidazole, azithromycin, and clindamycin. Pooled results favoured the use of antibiotics to reduce dry socket and surgical site infection after the removal of a lower third molar, with a number needed to treat of 25 and 18, respectively. Although antibiotic prophylaxis was found to significantly reduce the risk of dry socket and surgical site infection in patients undergoing lower third molar extraction, the number of patients needed to treat was high. Thus, clinicians should evaluate the need to prescribe antibiotics taking into consideration the patient's systemic status and the individual risk of developing a postoperative infection.
Topics: Humans; Dry Socket; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Surgical Wound Infection; Molar, Third; Network Meta-Analysis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 37612199
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2023.08.001 -
Journal of Cranio-maxillo-facial... Nov 2019A comprehensive literature search on implant placement protocols after tooth extraction (immediate, early, delayed, or later) was performed up to 2018. The screening... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Which is the best choice after tooth extraction, immediate implant placement or delayed placement with alveolar ridge preservation? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
A comprehensive literature search on implant placement protocols after tooth extraction (immediate, early, delayed, or later) was performed up to 2018. The screening process selected only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, and grey literature. A series of pairwise meta-analyses was carried out to evaluate implant performance in each protocol. The primary outcomes were implant survival and esthetic outcome, measured by pink esthetic score (PES), and the secondary outcomes were peri-implant bone resorption and implant complications. The outcomes were at least 1 year after implant surgery. A total of 5056 studies were found, of which 16 were included for qualitative analysis and 9 for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis showed increased risk of implant failure by 3% in the immediate implant protocol. PES analysis showed no statistical significant difference between immediate or delayed protocols (p = 0.16). However, the subgroup analysis showed that the anterior region presented better results with immediate implants, while the molar region presented better results with delayed implants. The quantitative analysis showed no statistical difference in peri-implant bone resorption between the immediate and delayed implant protocols (p = 0.42). Due to the lack of studies with a low risk of bias, further RCTs are needed for definitive conclusions.
Topics: Alveolar Process; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31522823
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2019.08.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes and improve prosthodontic and aesthetic outcomes when implants are used. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effects of various materials and techniques for ARP after tooth extraction compared with extraction alone or other methods of ARP, or both, in patients requiring dental implant placement following healing of extraction sockets.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 19 March 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 March 2021), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 March 2021), Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (1982 to 19 March 2021), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 19 March 2021), Scopus (1966 to 19 March 2021), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 19 March 2021), and OpenGrey (to 19 March 2021). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. A number of journals were also handsearched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of ARP techniques with at least six months of follow-up. Outcome measures were: changes in the bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge, changes in the vertical height of the alveolar ridge, complications, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, aesthetic outcomes, implant failure rates, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, changes in probing depths and clinical attachment levels at teeth adjacent to the extraction site, and complications of future prosthodontic rehabilitation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Corresponding authors were contacted to obtain missing information. We estimated mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables to present the main findings and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 RCTs conducted worldwide involving a total of 524 extraction sites in 426 adult participants. We assessed four trials as at overall high risk of bias and the remaining trials at unclear risk of bias. Nine new trials were included in this update with six new trials in the category of comparing ARP to extraction alone and three new trials in the category of comparing different grafting materials. ARP versus extraction: from the seven trials comparing xenografts with extraction alone, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge width (MD -1.18 mm, 95% CI -1.82 to -0.54; P = 0.0003; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites), and height (MD -1.35 mm, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.70; P < 0.0001; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites) in favour of xenografts, but we found no evidence of a significant difference for the need for additional augmentation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.62; P = 0.39; 4 studies, 154 participants, 156 extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence) or in implant failure rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 2 studies, 70 participants/extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence). From the one trial comparing alloplasts versus extraction, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge height (MD -3.73 mm; 95% CI -4.05 to -3.41; 1 study, 15 participants, 60 extraction sites) in favour of alloplasts. This single trial did not report any other outcomes. Different grafting materials for ARP: three trials (87 participants/extraction sites) compared allograft versus xenograft, two trials (37 participants, 55 extraction sites) compared alloplast versus xenograft, one trial (20 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with and without membrane, one trial (18 participants, 36 extraction sites) compared allograft with and without synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15, and one trial (30 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with different particle sizes. The evidence was of very low certainty for most comparisons and insufficient to determine whether there are clinically significant differences between different ARP techniques based on changes in alveolar ridge width and height, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, or implant failure. We found no trials which evaluated parameters relating to clinical attachment levels, specific aesthetic or prosthodontic outcomes for any of the comparisons. No serious adverse events were reported with most trials indicating that the procedure was uneventful. Among the complications reported were delayed healing with partial exposure of the buccal plate at suture removal, postoperative pain and swelling, moderate glazing, redness and oedema, membrane exposure and partial loss of grafting material, and fibrous adhesions at the cervical part of previously preserved sockets, for the comparisons xenografts versus extraction, allografts versus xenografts, alloplasts versus xenografts, and alloplasts with and without membrane.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
ARP techniques may minimise the overall changes in residual ridge height and width six months after extraction but the evidence is very uncertain. There is lack of evidence of any differences in the need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, implant failure, aesthetic outcomes, or any other clinical parameters due to lack of information or long-term data. There is no evidence of any clinically significant difference between different grafting materials and barriers used for ARP. Further long-term RCTs that follow CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org) are necessary.
Topics: Adult; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bias; Biocompatible Materials; Bone Regeneration; Bone Remodeling; Confidence Intervals; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Heterografts; Humans; Middle Aged; Organ Sparing Treatments; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33899930
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010176.pub3 -
Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research 2019To assess the treatment outcomes of the dental implants placed in the grafted sockets. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the treatment outcomes of the dental implants placed in the grafted sockets.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A search protocol was developed to evaluate the treatment outcomes of dental implants placed in the grafted sockets in terms of implant survival rates (primary outcome), marginal-bone-level (MBL) changes, clinical parameters (i.e., bleeding on probing, probing depth), occurrence of peri-implant diseases, and aesthetic outcomes (secondary outcomes). Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, and prospective studies with at least 12 months of follow-up and a minimum of 10 patients having at least one dental implant inserted into the grafted socket were conducted. MEDLINE (PubMed) was searched for relevant articles published until 1st April 2019. A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model on the selected qualifying articles.
RESULTS
The present analysis included 7 RCTs. The survival rate of the implants inserted into the grafted sockets ranged from 95 to 100% after 1 to 4 years of follow-up. MBL loss was found to be significantly greater for the implants placed in the non-grafted healed sites than for those placed in the previously grafted sockets (weighted mean difference = -1.961 mm, P < 0.0001). In terms of MBL changes, no difference was detected between immediately inserted implants versus implants placed in previously grafted sockets. None of the included studies reported on the clinical parameters or occurrence of peri-implant diseases.
CONCLUSIONS
Implants inserted into the previously grafted sockets showed high survival rates and lower marginal-bone-level loss than the implants inserted into the non-grafted sites.
PubMed: 31620270
DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2019.10308 -
Journal of Medicine and Life Mar 2022The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical need and impact of socket preservation to protect the bone for future dental implant placement. Moreover, we aimed to... (Review)
Review
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical need and impact of socket preservation to protect the bone for future dental implant placement. Moreover, we aimed to list down various methods of socket preservation by going through randomized clinical trials. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases for all relevant publications, where researchers compared various methods and tools for socket preservation. All eight randomized controlled trials mentioned several methods that are helpful in preserving bone levels both horizontally and vertically. The studies included in this systematic review demonstrate that each material has certain efficacy in preserving the socket after tooth extraction for future implant placement. Socket preservation methods and materials are effective in preparing patients for future prostheses.
Topics: Humans; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 35450006
DOI: 10.25122/jml-2021-0308 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jan 2021To analyse the evidence pertaining to post-extraction dimensional changes in the alveolar ridge after unassisted socket healing. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To analyse the evidence pertaining to post-extraction dimensional changes in the alveolar ridge after unassisted socket healing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The protocol of this PRISMA-compliant systematic review (SRs) was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020178857). A literature search to identify studies that fulfilled the eligibility criteria was conducted. Data of interest were extracted. Qualitative and random-effects meta-analyses were performed if at least two studies with comparable features and variables reported the same outcome of interest.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight articles were selected, of which 20 could be utilized for the conduction of quantitative analyses by method of assessment (i.e. clinical vs radiographic measurements) and location (i.e. non-molar vs molar sites). Pooled estimates revealed that mean horizontal, vertical mid-facial and mid-lingual ridge reduction assessed clinically in non-molar sites was 2.73 mm (95% CI: 2.36-3.11), 1.71 mm (95% CI: 1.30-2.12) and 1.44 mm (95% CI: 0.78-2.10), respectively. Mean horizontal, vertical mid-facial and mid-lingual ridge reduction assessed radiographically in non-molar sites was 2.54 mm (95% CI: 1.97-3.11), 1.65 mm (95% CI: 0.42-2.88) and 0.87 mm (95% CI: 0.36-1.38), respectively. Mean horizontal, vertical mid-facial and mid-lingual ridge reduction assessed radiographically in molar sites was 3.61 mm (95% CI: 3.24-3.98), 1.46 mm (95% CI: 0.73-2.20) and 1.20 mm (95% CI: 0.56-1.83), respectively.
CONCLUSION
A variable amount of alveolar bone resorption occurs after unassisted socket healing depending on tooth type.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Humans; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 33067890
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13390 -
Periodontology 2000 Feb 2023The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the benefit of ridge preservation (RP) with minimally invasive (MI) approaches with or without concomitant implant... (Review)
Review
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the benefit of ridge preservation (RP) with minimally invasive (MI) approaches with or without concomitant implant placement on morbidity, esthetics, and patient-related outcomes. Three Internet sources were used to search for appropriate papers. The search strategy was designed to include any clinical study published on RP with MI approaches such as flapless surgery, socket shield and socket sealing techniques and, use of biological agents. Characteristics of the individual studies, regarding methodological aspects, quantitative and qualitative data were extracted. The potential risk of bias was estimated, and the acquired evidence was graded. Independent screening of 860 reports resulted in 26 included original articles. Nine publications evaluated MI approaches for RP without concomitant implant placement. Eleven studies evaluated interventions for RP with immediate implant placement (IIP). Six studies compared RP with IIP vs RP without IIP. This systematic review found that MI approaches in most of the studies failed to improve clinical variables regarding morbidity, esthetics, and patient-related outcomes. Based on the limited number of studies analyzed and the methodological discrepancies observed, it is not possible to confirm that MI approaches promote a significant benefit when applied to RP procedures.
Topics: Humans; Alveolar Process; Tooth Socket; Tooth Extraction; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation
PubMed: 35913046
DOI: 10.1111/prd.12441 -
The International Journal of Oral &... 2018Alveolar ridge preservation procedures have been advocated to minimize postextraction dimensional loss. There is a need for systematic analyses of clinical factors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Alveolar ridge preservation procedures have been advocated to minimize postextraction dimensional loss. There is a need for systematic analyses of clinical factors affecting the outcomes of these procedures in order to improve their clinical outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of alveolar ridge preservation procedures in terms of hard tissue dimensional changes and to determine clinical factors affecting outcomes of these procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Studies comparing alveolar ridge preservation procedures with tooth extraction alone that reported quantitative outcomes for hard tissue dimensional changes were included. The primary outcome variable was horizontal dimensional changes of alveolar bone. Subgroup analyses evaluated effects of wound closure, flap elevation, type of grafting materials, use of barrier membranes, use of growth factors, socket morphology, and the position of teeth on outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation procedures.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies were included, and quantitative analyses were performed for seven outcome variables. Significant differences between alveolar ridge preservation and control sites were found for six outcome variables, all favoring alveolar ridge preservation procedures. The magnitude of effect for the primary outcome variable (horizontal dimensional changes of alveolar bone) was 1.86 mm (95% CI = 1.44, 2.28; P < .001). This magnitude of effect for the primary variable (as determined by subgroup analysis) was also significantly affected by type of wound closure (P = .033), type of grafting materials (P = .001), use of barrier membranes (P = .006), use of growth factors (P = .003), and socket morphology (P < .001).
CONCLUSION
Alveolar ridge preservation procedures are effective in minimizing postextraction hard tissue dimensional loss. The outcomes of these procedures are affected by morphology of extraction sockets, type of wound closure, type of grafting materials, use of barrier membranes, and use of growth factors.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bone Transplantation; Dental Care; Humans; Surgical Flaps; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 30231083
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.6399 -
International Journal of Oral and... Sep 2016The aim of this overview was to evaluate and compare the quality of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, that have evaluated studies on techniques or... (Review)
Review
The aim of this overview was to evaluate and compare the quality of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, that have evaluated studies on techniques or biomaterials used for the preservation of alveolar sockets post tooth extraction in humans. An electronic search was conducted without date restrictions using the Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases up to April 2015. Eligibility criteria included systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, focused on the preservation of post-extraction alveolar sockets in humans. Two independent authors assessed the quality of the included reviews using AMSTAR and the checklist proposed by Glenny et al. in 2003. After the selection process, 12 systematic reviews were included. None of these reviews obtained the maximum score using the quality assessment tools implemented, and the results of the analyses were highly variable. A significant statistical correlation was observed between the scores of the two checklists. A wide structural and methodological variability was observed between the systematic reviews published on the preservation of alveolar sockets post tooth extraction. None of the reviews evaluated obtained the maximum score using the two quality assessment tools implemented.
Topics: Biocompatible Materials; Checklist; Decision Making; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Postoperative Complications; Review Literature as Topic; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket
PubMed: 27061478
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2016.03.010 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Feb 2022By means of a systematic review and network meta-analysis, this study aims to answer the following questions: (a) does the placement of a biomaterial over an extraction... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
By means of a systematic review and network meta-analysis, this study aims to answer the following questions: (a) does the placement of a biomaterial over an extraction socket lead to better outcomes in terms of horizontal and vertical alveolar dimensional changes and percentage of new bone formation than healing without coverage? And (b) which biomaterial(s) provide(s) the better outcomes?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials treating ≥ 10 patients were included in this analysis. Studies were identified with MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus. Primary outcomes were preservation of horizontal and vertical alveolar dimension and new bone formation inside the socket. Both pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) were undertaken to obtain estimates for primary outcomes. For NMA, prediction intervals were calculated to estimate clinical efficacy, and SUCRA was used to rank the materials based on their performance; multidimensional ranking was used to rank treatments based on dissimilarity. The manuscript represents the proceedings of a consensus conference of the Italian Society of Osseointegration (IAO).
RESULTS
Twelve trials were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis: 312 sites were evaluated. Autologous soft tissue grafts were associated with better horizontal changes compared to resorbable membranes. A statistically significant difference in favor of resorbable membranes, when compared to no membrane, was found, with no statistically significant heterogeneity. For the comparison between crosslinked and non-crosslinked membranes, a statistically significant difference was found in favor of the latter and confirmed by histomorphometric NMA analysis. Given the relatively high heterogeneity detected in terms of treatment approaches, materials, and outcome assessment, the findings of the NMA must be interpreted cautiously.
CONCLUSIONS
Coverage of the healing site is associated with superior results compared to no coverage, but no specific sealing technique and/or biomaterial provides better results than others. RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed to better elucidate the trends emerged from the present analysis.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Autologous soft tissue grafts and membranes covering graft materials in post-extraction sites were proved to allow lower hard tissue shrinkage compared to the absence of coverage material with sealing effect. Histomorphometric analyses showed that non-crosslinked membranes provide improved hard tissue regeneration when compared to crosslinked ones.
Topics: Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Biocompatible Materials; Dental Care; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 34825280
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04262-3